Quote: I reject the false image of god sold to mankind in the garden of Eden which scripture also tells of. As for cherry picking the bible, I had a theology professor say I was being dishonest for claiming some of the bible true and other parts I was unsure about. He said it was either all true or it all wasn't. I told him that as God as my witness, I don't even understand all of the bible nor all of the meanings therein, it would be dishonest of me to say that I know it is all true. He then humbly made some concessions questioning his own conviction.

Then by your own reasoning, we are fully justified to dispute any claim you make using scripture, especially the sketchy apologetic ones.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

(08-05-2013 09:12 PM)childeye Wrote: But we know that time itself is a part of the universe. We also know that Light existed before minds could experience Light.

Yes that's the power of science.

However you have to prove that emotions, which are mind dependent, exist. If god is love and love is an emotion that is dependent on minds, then god is mind dependent.

In other words no minds no gods.

First off we are talking about God not gods. I would agree with you that gods are dependent upon minds. I don't need to prove the existence of emotions. What if God has a mind to create minds that create images of gods? We then would be dependent upon His Mind. You cannot conclude with all certainty that God is dependent upon minds any more than you can conclude that your great great grandfather is dependent upon you being born. You want me to prove God existed before the universe, before time. The only way to do this is to show that He could foretell the future and I have already shown in scripture prophecies about the Christ and this is already twenty twenty hindsight.

Incidentally science is not a power, it is a method of finding Truth about the physical and natural world.

(08-05-2013 09:18 PM)fstratzero Wrote: Yes that's the power of science.

However you have to prove that emotions, which are mind dependent, exist. If god is love and love is an emotion that is dependent on minds, then god is mind dependent.

In other words no minds no gods.

First off we are talking about God not gods. I would agree with you that gods are dependent upon minds. I don't need to prove the existence of emotions. What if God has a mind to create minds that create images of gods? We then would be dependent upon His Mind. You cannot conclude with all certainty that God is dependent upon minds any more than you can conclude that your great great grandfather is dependent upon you being born. You want me to prove God existed before the universe, before time. The only way to do this is to show that He could foretell the future and I have already shown in scripture prophecies about the Christ and this is already twenty twenty hindsight.

Incidentally science is not a power, it is a method of finding Truth about the physical and natural world.

Yes you can conclude that with certainty that god is dependent on minds. If god is love, and love is an emotion that is produced by a mind.

However my certainty and your version of certainty are different.

Certainty for me is beyond a reasonable doubt. Say about 80 to 90% chance of being correct.

For you it's 100% knowledge that you know and can state as truth.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

Quote: I reject the false image of god sold to mankind in the garden of Eden which scripture also tells of. As for cherry picking the bible, I had a theology professor say I was being dishonest for claiming some of the bible true and other parts I was unsure about. He said it was either all true or it all wasn't. I told him that as God as my witness, I don't even understand all of the bible nor all of the meanings therein, it would be dishonest of me to say that I know it is all true. He then humbly made some concessions questioning his own conviction.

Then by your own reasoning, we are fully justified to dispute any claim you make using scripture, especially the sketchy apologetic ones.

If we're going to start getting into scripture, I think you should question everything you are unsure about. I do. I don't want you to take my word for anything, but at least make valid disputes.

(08-05-2013 09:22 PM)evenheathen Wrote: Then by your own reasoning, we are fully justified to dispute any claim you make using scripture, especially the sketchy apologetic ones.

If we're going to start getting into scripture, I think you should question everything you are unsure about. I do. I don't want you to take my word for anything, but at least make valid disputes.

Question everything?

Okay then.

How is it that, considering the large number of sects based on the Bibal, a person can know they are using the correct interpretation and translation of the bibal?

In fact, how can this hypothetical person be sure he/she is even using to correct holy book to begin with?

I would prefer an answer which does not begin with the assumption that your interpretation of your translation of your holy book is the correct one. (things of the "the lord tells you" ilk start with such an assumption, though perhaps unconsciously, I will not view it as a sound response.)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.